DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES

May 17, 2001

Members Present Ben Barcon Patricia Childs Gary L. Coley Mike Colletto Stephen Elssmann Peter Hemingway David Kelly Scott Mardian Gary Morris Herman Orcutt Danny Ortega Judy Pavsek Greg Russell Steve Speer Julie Stiak Darrell Wilson Members Absent John Augustine Robert Frank Michael Fries

Staff Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Jim Brahaney, City of Phoenix, Mayor's Office Rick Doell, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Fitz, City of Phoenix, DSD Bob Goodhue, City of Phoenix, DSD Mary Helen Giustizia, City of Phoenix, DSD Mark Green, City of Phoenix, DSD Chris Hartye, City of Phoenix, Mayor's Office Dan Hatch, City of Phoenix, DSD Carol James, City of Phoenix, DSD Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Judy Lenz, City of Phoenix, DSD Larry Litchfield, Development Services Lionel Lyons, City of Phoenix, DSD Jay Mundy, City of Phoenix, DSD Kelly O'Neal, City of Phoenix, DSD Alan Olson, City of Phoenix, DSD John Parks, City of Phoenix, DSD Carnell Thurman, City of Phoenix, DSD John Watson, City of Phoenix, Fire Jon Wendt, City of Phoenix, DSD Interested Parties John Arlienne, Ball Architects Linda Barnett, Scottsdale Plumbing Jerry K. Bivens, LSW Engineers Chris Bramwell, Ryland Homes Rus Brock, HBACA Ken Bruening, Richmond American Dennis Correll, Metro Phoenix Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Assoc. David Forte, Beazer Homes Mark Giebelhaus, Marlin Mechanical Tom Hedges, City of Mesa Ron Henricksen, Courtesy Plumbing Joe Kerlin, Deer Valley Plumbing William J. Kilcullen, Engineering Designs, Inc. Don Kress, Honeywell Engines John Kuhn, Evans, Kuhn Rich Kurelowech, Professional Consulting Eng. Mark Larson, Marlin Mechanical Tanya Martella, HBACA Rick McDowell, Continental Homes Charlotte Newman, J3 Consulting LLC Joe Nunes, CB Richard Ellis Ken Rembold, Brown Family Communities Larry Richards Victoria St. Clair, Beazer Homes Gary Sanford, Freelance Plumbing Tom Stone, Clark Engineering Don Steury, Honeywell Vince Territo, Todd & Assoc. Marcus Tork, Watermill Express Carl Triphahn, P.I.P.E. Don Wimmer, Continental Homes Troy Wurth, Kraemer Engineering

Gary Coley, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 2:03 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION CODE, SECTIONS 1103.1.9.1 AND 1103.1.9.3 - TO REQUIRE AT LEAST ONE MODEL, AS PART OF A MODEL HOME COMPLEX, HAVE A NO-STEP ENTRANCE; AND REQUIRE A CONTINUOUS NO-STEP PATH CONNECTING EACH SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE PRIMARY ENTRY:
The following written public comments were received to be read into the record:

May 11, 2001

From for Brown Family Communities as Purchasing Manager:

I personally don't have a problem with this idea, for I have personally completed several homes with this idea. However, using a different weep/lathe system than that which we are currently using in production homebuilding.

The UBC-approved weep-screed/foam system we currently used in production homebuilding inherently hangs down below the finished floor height and projects out 1" from the foundation stem surface. What this means is if we were to bring the entryway up close to this projection, the entryway's surface directly under this 1"projected area will be a surface not easily finished, if at all (the closer the surface, the harder to finish, of course). If we bring the entryway all the way up to the bottom of this projection, then if the wall ever gets wet, this weep will not be able shed, or "weep" the water as designed.

What have others said in this regard?

Gary Crosby
Brown Family Communities

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 16, 2001

As you an other members of the Development Advisory Board consider the proposed change to the City of Phoenix construction code that would require a no-step entry as part of a model home complex, I ask that you incorporate these additional factors in your decision:

• The draft regulation was unanimously approved by the ad-hoc committee which included representatives of the handicapped and homebuilding community as well as DAB members.
• While no-step entries have typically not been shown as an option in model homes, homebuilders have and will continue to respond to thousands of unique homebuyer requests. If no-step entries were being heavily requested they would have already been added to the "options" list. In the highly competitive home building market, satisfying homebuyer requests is a key strategy.
• Some of the ad-hoc committee members believe that most homebuyers will choose a no-step entry given the opportunity to appropriately consider it during the purchase of their new home. The proposed construction code supports that belief by allowing every homebuyer to choose this new option.
• Allow homebuilders to continue the existing practice of providing choice for homebuyers without mandating something that very few homebuyers have requested. (Based on a survey of 1999 sales by nine homebuilders, only .25% of the buyers requested some special accommodation for accessibility).

The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona believes that homebuyer choice will provide adequate accommodation for those homebuyers who desire no-step entry and that the City's adoption of building codes should be confined to health and safety issues. If I can provide answers to any questions or provide additional information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Rus Brock, Deputy Director
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona

Gary Coley	At this time I will call for public comment on the proposed changes to Phoenix Construction Code Section 1103.1.9.1 and 1103.1.9.4 - to require at least one model, as part of a model home complex, have a no-step entrance; and require a continuous no-step path connecting each subdivision sales office or public right-of-way to the primary entry.
Ken Rembold In Favor	My name is Ken Rembold. I am with Brown Family Communities and I'm here to speak on behalf of the company. Also, I would like to clarify something in case there is any confusion from Gary Crosby's letter. He referred to a weep screed that is part of the stucco system. On that particular weep screed there is in the code a requirement that you cannot go lower to the concrete than, I believe it is one inch. That is part of the concern that he has, that if you bring up a ramp or step that is at the same level as the building floor, it would create an issue with the code. I believe that there is a way that we can mitigate that, but it is an issue. Given that, I do want to let you know that we do accommodate buyers today that come into our offices and require special door sizes or entrances/approaches. We are in the business of selling homes and if we eliminated any portion of the buyers we have today, they would go right down the street. We're anxious to keep all the buyers that walk in our door, not just those that aren't in wheelchairs. It is our intent to provide access for people in wheelchairs as much as those that are not. I am not sure that I agree that we should be mandated. I agree with the statement that was made earlier that it is a choice that is made by the buyer that comes into our sales office. If it did come down to a mandate, I would favor that we offer one ramp or access to one particular model from our sales office, but indicate that as an option rather than a standard feature. We would certainly accommodate all those that wanted to have it. Thank you.
Gary Coley	I failed to mention that we will be setting time limits on comments. I feel that we have few enough cards that we can keep it to three minutes, so we will stay with that at the moment. The next card is Chris Bramwell.
Chris Bramwell Opposed	I choose not to speak.
Gary Coley	Next is Rus Brock.
Rus Brock In Favor	My name is Rus Brock from the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona at 2111 East Highland. First and foremost I want to thank Mike Colletto, who chaired the ad hoc subcommittee of the DAB that allowed both the homebuilding community and the handicapped community to sit around the table and come up with the proposal that is in front of you today. Mike provided leadership and consensus building and I believe that was an important part of getting to what appears to be a workable solution for both sides of what was at one point an issue where there were people on very different sides. Thank you again, Mr. Colletto. I did provide that letter and I think for the most part that it presents a summary of the key issues that I saw. Having worked on that group with Mike, I think we have reached something. If everyone chooses a no-step entry, we as an industry are just as happy. We are not trying to preclude that and this particular proposal allows choice, including one hundred percent choice. At some point, if that begins to happen, it comes off the option sheet and maybe the step goes on the option sheet. I think the home building industry wants to accommodate accessibility. It is a trend that is moving nationally, both visibility and universal living. It's coming and I think builders will get there. At this point, I think that to do what was originally proposed and mandate that would be something that the industry isn't ready for. I would appreciate your recommendation and forwarding of the draft proposal you have in front of you for approval.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Ken Bruening?
Ken Bruening In Favor	My name is Ken Bruening. I am with Richmond American Homes. I support the Home Builders side on this that it should be an option. On a personal note, my wife is handicapped and I know that everyone has different needs and different issues in their own personal life. I am in favor of supporting this as an option and supporting many other decisions that people make in their life as far as options go, especially when you get to build your own home.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Don Wimmer?
Don Wimmer Opposed	I choose not to speak.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on this issue?
David Forte In Favor	I'm David Forte from Beazer Homes. We do agree with the proposed amendment and we are already doing this on some of our model complexes.
Gary Coley	Thank you. I remind those that are here on other issues that our preference is that you fill out one of the blue cards available at the table, so that for the record we know who you are and so that I can call on you to speak. If there is no other discussion from the floor, we will throw it open to discussion with the Advisory Board. Any questions, comments? Mike would you like to make a statement, since it is your committee?
Mike Colletto	I would like to thank Rus Brock for his comments. I appreciate those comments. I think the Board has heard this issue on several occasions and bringing it to a public meeting has allowed some good public input. I'm ready to make a motion to move this forward to the appropriate subcommittee on the City Council.

MOTION was made by Mike Colletto, seconded by Greg Russell, to recommend approval of proposed changes to the Phoenix Construction Code, Sections 1003.1.9.1 and 1103.1.9.4 - to require at least one model, as part of a model home complex, have a no-step entrance; and require a continuous no-step path connecting each subdivision sales office or public right-of-way to the primary entry. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Coley advised that would conclude the public hearing on the proposed changes to the Phoenix Construction Code, Sections 1003.1.9.1 and 1103.1.9.3.

PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF 2000 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE (UMC) WITH PHOENIX AMENDMENTS
No written comments were received.

Gary Coley	The first card I have is from a Troy Wurth.
Troy Wurth In Favor	I have no comment.
Gary Coley	Next is Larry Richards.
Larry Richards Opposed	I am Larry Richards and I am retired. I have a question. My understanding is that last year that the City of Phoenix adopted a policy to only use consensus- based codes. I don't think IAPMO, the organization that develops the Uniform Mechanical Code has applied to ANSI (American National Standards Institute) for approval of their code development process as an ANSI approved consensus code process. ANSI has not approved IAPMO or the Uniform Mechanical Code development process. So based on the fact that the UMC is not an ANSI approved consensus code, I would be opposed to adoption of the 2000 UMC.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Next is Richard Kurlowech.
Richard Kurlowech In Favor	I am going to decline to speak.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Ron Henricksen?
Ron Henricksen In Favor	I didn't plan to speak, but I will speak the best that I can on this subject. I am Ron Henricksen of Courtesy Plumbing. I heard that this had not been approved by ANSI and I believe, if I am not mistaken, that is in the workings right now and will take place in about six weeks. Is that true, Larry? Do you know anything about that? That is the impression that I got on that subject. If that is the case, then it should be approved.
Gary Coley	Thanks for your input. Joe Kerlin?
Joe Kerlin In Favor	No comment.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Dennis Correll?
Dennis Correll In Favor	I choose not to speak.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Gary Sanford?
Gary Sanford In Favor	I choose not to speak.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Linda Barnett?
Linda Barnett In Favor	I choose not to speak.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Tom Stone?
Tom Stone In Favor	I choose not to speak.
Ben Barcon	Mr. Chairman, does the card say if they are in favor or not in favor and could you indicate that?
Gary Coley	I can. For the record, Troy Wurth is in favor of this item; Larry Richards is opposed; Richard Kurelowech is in favor of the item; Ron Henricksen is in favor of the item; Joe Kerlin is in favor of the item; Dennis Correll is in favor of the item; Gary Sanford is in favor of the item; Linda Barnett is in favor of the item; Tom Stone is in favor of the item.
Gary Coley	Carl Triphahn?
Carl Triphahn	Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Carl Triphahn. I am the Executive Director of P.I.P.E., the Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, and we fully support the City of Phoenix adopting the Uniform Mechanical Code. We're glad to see it happening and we would like to see it go forward along with the Plumbing Code. Thank you.
Gary Coley	I have no other cards. Is there anyone else from the floor who would like to speak? To the microphone please.
Mark Giebelhaus	I am president of Marlin Mechanical Corporation here in Phoenix. Just a point of clarification on the City of Phoenix policy for open voluntary consensus codes. The City of Phoenix policy does not require the code to meet ANSI standards for consensus codes. The Uniform Mechanical Code produced by IAPMO is indeed an open voluntary consensus codes and meets the City of Phoenix policy.
Gary Coley	Thank you. With no other public input, we will throw this open for comments and questions from the Board. With no questions or comments, I would entertain a motion relevant to the approval.

MOTION was made by Steve Speer, seconded by Herman Orcutt, to recommend for approval the adoption of the 2000 Uniform Mechanical Code with proposed Phoenix amendments. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Coley advised that would conclude the public hearing on the recommended adoption of the 2000 Uniform Mechanical Code.

MOTION was made by Ben Barcon, seconded by Dave Kelly, to recommend approval of the proposed changes to the Phoenix Construction Code, Section 112 - Journeyman licensing procedures. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Coley advised that would conclude the public hearing on the proposed changes to the Phoenix Construction Code, Section 112 - Journeyman licensing procedures.

May 15, 2001

Dear Mr. Litchfield:

I have become aware of a recommendation by the Development Advisory Board Subcommittee to the Development Advisory Board for an increase in the hourly AFP fee from $90.00 per/hr to $134.00 per/hr. This is an increase of nearly 50%. How can an increase of this size be justified? I do not suppose the AFP program has been operating at a deficit in the past. Could it be that since the AFP program is so successful, Development Services is attempting to tap into this revenue for purposes other than the support of the AFP program? Or is Development Services trying to discourage the use of the AFP program? This matter is very alarming.

CB Richard Ellis currently manages over 3.5 million square feet of office space in the Phoenix area. I am on three different AFPs and we expect to add more properties in the future. The AFP program is very efficient in the process they are tasked to do. I have great respect for the people and the way the AFP program is managed. The Real Estate market, as far as office space, is starting to go flat. Increasing costs for the services you provide will certainly have an effect on our ability to attract business to the city of Phoenix. I urge you to consider the consequences of increasing any Development Services fees.

Joe Nunes
CB Richard Ellis

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15, 2001

I received a notice from Dan Fleming that the Development Advisory Board Subcommittee is going to recommend that the hourly fee for AFP be increased from $90 to $134. I would like to make a few comments in this regard.

The proposed increase is very large, 48% of the original fee. I would not recommend such a large increase for political reasons. My clients would scream bloody murder if I tried this! The new rate makes the inspector fee equivalent to or even greater than that charged by many engineers and architects in the valley, including me and I just raised my rates recently. Why would it be necessary to pay an inspector more than the engineer?

If the AFP is not covering its costs, it may be appropriate to investigate where the short fall occurs, possibly in time sheet practices or other functions in the process of getting the folks to log their time (all of It) and then transferring it into the main system. In other words, can you determine what % of the inspector's time is actually billed? My guess is that the shortage is occurring there, assuming that there is a shortage.

Will my clients opt out of the system because of this? Probably not, but they will not be pleased and they will not be as willing to have an inspector come to the site for questions and answers. It will make getting into the program more difficult for new firms.

Scott Grainger
Scott Grainger Consulting
480-833-2100

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15, 2001

I understand that plan review and inspection fee rate for the Annual Permit Program is proposed to increase from $90/hour to $134/hour. It is a big 50% increase for this time. Looking back at rate increase history for the last 5 years, it is 168% increase since January 1997(rate increased from $50 to $85 in 1/97). I don't believe business expenses have increased by 168% for last 5 years. The rate may be increased to cover the increased cost for the AFP program, but not to increase the city general revenue for other purposes. I strongly believe that any rate increase should be justified.

Heejoong Kim
AFP Registrant for Honeywell - IAC
Registration No. I - 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 16, 2001

I've read the notice for the DAB Public Hearing, which will consider some fee increases. The issue of most concern is the increase of the hourly rates, particularly AFP to $134. This is a very steep increase and it would be helpful to explain in more detail, exactly what this covers and when. I know the program well, but this would help our clients, who actually pay the bill. For example, is this per person or per session? The rate at $134 is higher than the highest hourly rate in our firm.

Mo Stein
Stein-Cox

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15, 2001

AFP Fee Increases:
I strongly support the increase provided that we are given proper service with regards to the program. The majority of our clients are more time sensitive than money sensitive and this makes it imperative that we are afforded every opportunity for rapid and thorough service with the program.

Bernie Deutsch, NCARB
President, Deutsch Associates

That concludes the written comments for inclusion into the record.

Gary Coley	We have requests to speak on the issue. William J. Kilcullen?
William Kilcullen Opposed	My name is Bill Kilcullen and I thank you for pronouncing my name correctly. It is a little bit difficult Irish name. I represent a company on the west side that has a square footage production, say an advertising plant, of about 70,000 square feet. The reason that they have asked us and we have agreed to work with them as the plant registrant is because they cannot afford to pay the cost of having a full-time engineer on staff. The system that the City of Phoenix has developed under the registered plant concept has been very effective and efficient over the last twenty-five years that it has been in existence. In my opinion, the increased or proposed increase from $90 to $134 is excessive, particularly since my client nor I were informed of it until I heard about on Monday of this past week. I would like to know more about the reasoning behind it before you agree to it and I personally feel very strongly that you ought not to accept this much of an increase right now. I would prefer that you stay at the present rate.
Gary Coley	Thank you. Joe Nunez?
Joe Nunez Opposed	I choose not to speak.
Gary Coley	For the record, Mr. Nunez is opposed to this item. Any other comments from the floor?
Don Kress Opposed	My name is Don Kress, I am the plant registrant for Honeywell Engines and Systems at the Airport. I'm on the record as being against the rate increase. It is excessive. We have been going through many rate increases with our vendors across the site for services and this particular increase seems to be well out of line with some of the other increases we have been asked to absorb. As such, we are suspect to the amount and would like to oppose it at this time until such point in time as the increase would be justified.
Gary Coley	Thank you for your input. Any questions or comments from the Board?

Herman Orcutt suggested that they begin with a presentation from DSD staff that might answer some of the questions that have been raised. Mr. Alan Olson advised that the City of Phoenix budget year begins on July 1 and as part of this year's budget proposal the Development Services Department is requesting approval of a fee increase of approximately $2.3M. About half of that amount is to pay for cost recovery of existing service levels and the other half is to pay for proposed service improvements.

By way of comparison, the department is currently operating with a $32M budget and about 342 staff. The annual activity level is about 2.5 billion dollars worth of building construction valuation, including between 4,000-4,500 new homes and this past year of a significant increase in commercial construction activity. This past year major reorganization has taken place in the department, including restructuring of the commercial areas into teams resulting in an increased customization of our plan review activity.

Each year in preparation of the budget the City's Budget and Research Department and the City Auditors perform a review of all City user fees and services to determine cost recovery levels. Based on the current activity level, the amount of plans and permits issued and the mix of projects coming through the system, this analysis has shown that this next fiscal year beginning July 1 the site planning and civil engineering functions of the department will be cost recovery under the current fee rate. However, the building safety plan review and permit functions will be under-recovered by a little over $1M or approximately 13% of the revenue for that particular segment of activity.

The hourly rate charges we bill for services are also significantly under-recovered to the tune of approximately 30-50%. Under the City's rules, the department is required to be one hundred percent cost recovery for all our services. The last DSD fee increase was in 1997 and increases for that fee adjustment were higher in the civil engineering and site planning areas with a minor increase in building safety. We believe that is why those areas are currently cost-recovered now, while building safety is not.

The proposed service improvements for this next fiscal year are to address cycle time complaints and problems, particularly in the building safety area. We are proposing to add seven plan review staff, primarily in the large plan review area, to complete the staffing of the teams. An additional sign inspector is also proposed to improve the department's response time to complaints on illegal signs and respond to a recently passed State law that requires a citywide continuing inventory of billboards or any offsite advertising.

In addition to the staffing increases, DSD is also proposing two facility increases. We are constructing a north Phoenix permitting center at 35th Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Road, a multi-use facility with Parks, Human Services, and Police Departments. We are proposing to lease space on the west side of Phoenix, probably in concert with at least one other department. The purpose of both of those facilities is to house our inspectors and to provide permitting services remote from City Hall.

The proposed fee increases and the rationale for them have been reviewed extensively with the Advisory Board's Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee. Three options were reviewed: the first is to actually reduce our current staffing level down to the level that would be fee supported; the second is to increase fees by $1M to support the current staff and service level, but with no service improvements; and the third is to increase fees by $2.3M to provide current staff level and proposed improvements and to be one hundred percent cost-recovery.

The department is recommending the third option, the full fee increase. Details of that option are to maintain the current permit and plan review fees for site planning and civil engineering services, to increase the hourly rates for general department services from $90 to $120 and the Annual Facilities Program (AFP) to $134 per hour. These rates are the total for fully-burdened costs in those sections. The Annual Facilities staff are all senior inspectors paid at a higher rate than the standard inspectors and the specialized service that is provided is less efficient than the normal assembly-line regular inspections. The other feature of the proposal is the increase in building safety plan review and permit fees by approximately 7-8%. Fee calculation would also be changed from square footage to a valuation based table.

A few other minor simplifications and consolidations of fees are proposed and have no monetary impact, but aim towards simplification of the schedule. The department is requesting the Advisory Board for their concurrence on these recommendations. The recommendation of the Advisory Board will be forwarded on to the City Council for consideration when the City Council adopts the next fiscal year budget on June 27. If approved, Development Services is recommending the new fees become effective on August 4, 2001.

Mr. Barcon asked if Mr. Olson could clarify the law that has changed regarding signs and sign inventories and how that happened? When we do change those laws that require additional workload; do we not include budget from some source to handle that?

Mr. Don Jones, Law Department, responded that this is a State law was passed a little over a year and a half ago. The law mandates that cities must take action to enforce against a sign violation within one year of discovering that violation. The case law in that area is rather murky, as well as the way the ordinance is written. It can be construed such that "discovery" is an actual discovery, it's when we should have discovered and it's fairly difficult not to "should have" discovered signs out in the open. We have a concern that we have illegal signs that we need to inventory and take appropriate action on. Mr. Olson clarified that this refers to "off-premise" signs, not the sign at the corner grocery store, but billboards or any other advertising off-premises.

Mr. Barcon asked if this was required of all cities? Mr. Jones confirmed that was the case. Mr. Barcon asked if we have looked at our current staffing in the Signs area and have determined that one more staff person is required? Mr. Olson stated that was the case.

Mr. Barcon asked how that particular area handled their budget last year and if they were one hundred percent cost recovery? Mr. Olson advised that the Sign inspectors are part of the building safety financial budget and that it is impossible to completely detail their costs because Sign permits are worked with regular inspectors and Sign staff (both office and inspections) doing a portion of the work. The pure enforcement section of the Signs section was reduced by Council action almost ten years ago. There was at one time an annual fee for every sign in the City, varying from $10 to $50 per sign that covered costs for enforcement staff. That fee was eliminated and the staff that was funded by that fee were eliminated in the early 90s and have never been replaced. Now we are having to revisit this issue and devote staff for this required enforcement.

Mr. Barcon asked if we have determined what the cost of these two new centers is going to be with regards to the total $1.2 service improvements? Mr. Olson responded that the DSD cost for the North Phoenix Service Center is $335,000 and $200,000 has been budgeted for the west side center, a total of $535,000. Mr. Barcon asked the exact location of the two facilities. Mr. Olson stated that the North Phoenix Service Center is part of the Paseo Highlands Community Center being built at 35th Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Road. A site selection has not yet been made for the west side center.

Mr. Barcon asked if DSD has considered opening one center to see how that works and how that is accepted by the community. Mr. Olson responded that the North Phoenix Service Center is a construction project and the $335,000 is DSD's share of building that center. It will open next budget year. On the west side, we are discussing leasing space because we need additional room for our inspectors. Currently, civil inspection staff have no office at all and are doing a tremendous amount of work in the west Phoenix or Laveen area. We are trying to borrow other City space to house that staff and have not been successful. We are expecting to lease warehouse or storefront office space for that staff and to co-locate with another department (probably Neighborhood Services) to share costs.

Mr. Barcon asked if we anticipate adding additional staff to man these offices? Mr. Olson stated that on the west side there would be no additional staff, this space is needed to house existing staff. At the north side site there may be a potential of adding one or two clerical staff in next year's budget. All the technical and inspection staff that would be stationed there would come out of current City Hall space. Mr. Barcon asked if there was a possibility of beginning the process with the City Council to revisit the one hundred percent cost-recovery policy? Mr. Olson advised that the Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee is looking toward addressing that issue.

Mr. Coley stated a concern was expressed both from the floor and from the input received from the industry letter that the fee increase exceeded the actual need and would "contribute to the general revenue fund." Mr. Coley stated that he gathered from all of the discussion points that this is not the case. Mr. Olson responded that we can predict our expenses very closely and control those expenses, but we cannot predict the revenues quite as closely. All the calculations that have been done are based on the current activity level. Based on that, we predict these fees will accomplish the goal of one hundred percent cost-recovery to fund the current services.

Mr. Russell asked if service levels were decreased (Option A), what areas would be affected and how would they be affected? Mr. Olson explained that every budget year the department is required to identify varying degree of reductions as part of the budget process. This year that reduction could total as high as $2M. In doing that, we identify staff that would be reduced. That staff would include fifteen positions, including support staff, management assistants, civil engineers, planners, construction permit specialists, computer support staff, development services technicians, principal engineering tech, electrical plans examiner, mechanical plans examiner, building codes plans examiner and one structural engineer. In a worst case scenario, if we had to reduce our budget, those are the positions that would be affected.

Mr. Gary Morris asked what impact that would have on the service provided to the applicant? Mr. Olson responded that if we had to reduce staff by fifteen, it would reduce our service levels and increase the cycle times for plan review and inspections. We would also be unable to enhance our computer systems as planned, as the support staff that do that would no longer be available. Our plans for this next year are to roll out computerizing our inspections as well as enhancing our Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping system.

Mr. Coley referred to a discussion that took place earlier in the year that indicated a slow down was anticipated. He asked if that has occurred? Mr. Olson stated that residential has remained relatively level over the past two or three years. On the commercial side, last fall it was very slow and in late November there was concern that we would not reach our budget. Since the middle of December we have been inundated with commercial projects, which is why our cycle times have fallen behind and why we are proposing staff increases to cover those plan review areas. The slow down does not appear to be happening. Mr. Orcutt added that he concurred with that and stated that the third quarter is the busiest quarter DSD has had all year.

Mr. Scott Mardian commented that generally staff is not meeting the cycle time goals that have been set and there is a shortfall in revenue for building safety. The hourly rate proposed for the registered industrial plant, (AFP) program is $134.00. The lower rate is not recovering the actual costs of that program. The transition to teams that the staff has been going through is actually customer-preferred. It requires greater technical abilities and a greater amount of time, but it is a better system. To maintain the current level of service, we need to increase the staff. Mr. Mardian stated that in his experience, the City has been making efforts to maximize technology over the course of the last few years and he feels that the establishment of the new service centers is a positive step. Mr. Mardian stated that he could only try to reassure the Board and the public that no one on the subcommittee was in favor of a rate increase when they first heard about it, but after extensive study and meetings, the subcommittee was unanimous in their decision to endorse the fee increase.

Mr. Barcon asked how many staff vacancies there are currently and if the increase wasn't granted, would that mean that those vacancies would not be filled or that fifteen people would be eliminated? Mr. Olson advised that currently our vacancy level is at 6-8 and that no increase would mean actual layoffs. Mr. Barcon added that he realizes that DSD has a big job and the longer that the members sit on the Board, the more they realize how much DSD does. However, looking at it from a user perspective, if we are looking to cut plan review times and if are increasing fees by 48%, he doesn't think the expectation is that we're going to cut permit times by the same percentage. Are we are talking about maintaining things at the same level? Mr. Olson responded that we are discussing increasing fees about 7-8% and a significant increase in the hourly rate (30-48%) to meet the current expenses in those areas. Mr. Orcutt added that in the case of the hourly rate, the majority of those charges are for discretionary charges such as overtime (after hours or weekend inspections) or the AFP program. He stated that he is not happy about that kind of a rate increase either, but those are the rates it is currently costing the City to provide those services. Mr. Mardian added that the AFP program is an excellent program even at a $134 an hour and worth the cost.

Mr. Stephen Elssmann asked if DSD had this type of revenue short fall the previous year, was the gap that huge? Mr. Olson advised that the last fee increase was in 1997 in order to cover revenue shortfalls at that time. Since then the activity level has increased and the staffing level has lagged behind enough that there were enough dollars to cover costs for existing staff. Over the last several years we have added staff and with the time it takes to add that staff, we are always behind the power curve on production, so as the permit and plan review fees come in we haven't been able to provide the service until we have the staff on board. The bottomline is we have made our budget the last four years. This is the first year since 1997 that we are forecasting that we will not. Mr. Elssmann stated that it seemed to him that if there has been an increase in activity and we have had to ramp up to that activity that we would have shown difficulty as the years progressed; that it wouldn't be such a sudden change.

Mr. Olson advised that DSD doesn't see it as a sudden change. We are seeing that we probably should have increased fees for building safety a little more in 1997. At this time site planning and civil engineering areas are still operating on a cost-recovery basis, but the building safety area will not recover at their current rate. Everything from salary, vehicles and fuel have gone up, but our fees have not kept pace.

Mr. Darrell Wilson asked if there was a cost multiplier per individual that has been determined for DSD to break even? Mr. Olson advised that it is not determined in that fashion, but is figured by specific cost centers (activity areas: civil engineering, plan review, building plan review, inspections). The analysis is the total cost of operating those sections including overhead versus the revenue from permits or other charges that go toward funding that section. For example, the costs for the AFP section over the past year have been $3.5M and the revenue for that section is $1.8M.

Mr. Barcon asked what the costs could be attributed to? Is it extra man hours that are required to do the amount of work? Mr. Olson advised that these are fully-burdened costs, including hours for individual staff, supervisory time and City overhead time (central services costs). Every single City staff is assessed a share of the rent, utilities, maintenance costs, etc. Mr. Orcutt added that the type of personnel involved in the AFP program are more senior staff with higher salaries. He further stated that when DSD first came to the subcommittee with rate increase recommendations, they had asked for a $120 increase in the hourly rate overall. The subcommittee after examining the costs felt that the AFP group should be raised to the $134 rate to reflect the actual cost of the program and be cost-recovery as well.

Mr. Elssmann asked how these fees compare with other cities, are we in line with the proposed increases? Mr. Olson stated that we have done fee comparisons with other municipalities and currently other municipalities are going through fee increases at this time. Development Services is at the midline in comparison to other cities fees as a whole. DSD is also the only department in the Valley that is required to be one hundred percent cost-recovery.

Mr. Peter Hemingway asked what the average hourly rate is for production staff? Mr. Olson advised that he didn't have that number available at this time, but that in the case of the AFP group, the inspectors are all senior inspectors and are paid a 5% premium hourly charge to a regular inspector (at top step). All of the AFP inspectors are currently at the top step of the pay range. In the regular sections a significant number of staff are not yet at top step, but are at a lower salary range. There is actually less overhead for the AFP program due to the fact that there is only one supervisor, but the difference is the salary differential and due to the fact that they are less efficient. Being a specialized group providing a higher level of customized service, they make fewer inspections each day than regular production inspectors.

Mr. Barcon asked for clarification on the AFP program. Mr. Olson advised the Annual Facilities Program is a program that clients sign up for as an optional program that eliminates a regular plan review and normal inspection schedule. You have assigned inspectors that work with you on your project regularly. Mr. Barcon asked if it was going to discourage use of that program if the costs go up? Mr. Olson advised that DSD doesn't want to discourage use of the program, but on the other hand it has to pay for itself.

Mr. Steve Speer advised that he understood that the Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee has been meeting on this subject since April 19 on a weekly basis, and asked if it was correct that these were all public notice meetings? Mr. Orcutt advised that was correct.

Ms. Julie Stiak, a member of the subcommittee, wished to add that the original proposal included a 12-13% across the board rate hike. When it was further evaluated by the subcommittee and the fully burdened costs and where they occurred were studied, the largest disparity was in AFP. The subcommittee asked DSD staff to do further evaluation, based on the fact that they felt we shouldn't ask customers who need site plan review or building safety inspections to subsidize the cost of the voluntary AFP program. That is why, after several weeks of deliberation, the subcommittee arrived at the decision to raise the hourly rate for AFP services.

Mr. Orcutt, as chairman of the Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee, wished to thank Scott Mardian and Julie Stiak for the time they devoted over the past several months going over the fees with DSD staff. Mr. Orcutt advised that without some action DSD will have to provide less service. The subcommittee is proposing that DSD provide more service, but that there be enough staff to facilitate the completion of the teams and enable them to meet the target turnaround times.

MOTION was made by Steve Speer, seconded by Herman Orcutt, to recommend approval of the proposed changes to Phoenix City Code Appendix A-2 - FY 2001/02 Development Services Fee Adjustments. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Coley advised that concluded the public hearing for the proposed changes to the Phoenix City Code Appendix A-2 - FY 2001/02 Development Services Fee Adjustments. Mr. Coley proceeded with the regular agenda items for the May Development Advisory Board meeting.

MINUTES OF April 19, 2001:

MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Danny Ortega, to approve the meeting minutes of April 19, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.

REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Ben Barcon asked that something be put together regarding the DSD cost recovery issue. Mr. Coley stated that was high on the Board's list and will make sure that it gets on the agenda. Mr. Barcon stated that he felt it was important enough that a separate subcommittee should be considered to address it. Mr. Coley advised that the issue and how to handle it would be considered by the Board.

Mr. Wilson asked for consideration of another agenda item, the issue of Floodplain Management being administered through the Street Transportation Department, but floodplain review, drainage review, engineering review being handled by Development Services. Mr. Wilson would like to hear input from staff of each of those respective departments as to whether that is still the most effective way to administer the program. Mr. Wilson stated that it was not obvious to him as to why Floodplain administration would belong in Street Transportation as opposed to Development Services.

DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:

Executive: No Report

Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee:
Mr. Herman Orcutt advised that the subcommittee has been working on two elements for the past several months. One is the recommendation for a fee increase and the other is the method in which it is collected. The subcommittee is proposing a shift from the current square footage based valuation to a real dollar valuation of the project. After studying the calculation methods and comparing with established valuation-based methods, they feel that they have a more effective way of valuating projects and the actual costs involved in reviewing those projects. This would also provide a built-in index so that when construction costs rose, the fees would automatically rise with them.

The subcommittee's first task was to try to simplify the existing fee schedule. With the proposed changes, approximately 10% of the existing schedule would be eliminated, but the goal is to reduce it even more drastically. The subcommittee hopes to simplify it to the point that a customer could reference the schedule in terms of the valuation of their project and easily be able to calculate the fees.

Process and Procedures:
Mr. Barcon advised that the Process and Procedures Subcommittee held a public hearing on May 11, 2001 on the City's proposed procedure to certify structural steel fabricators. The meeting minutes from that hearing have not yet been completed. He suggested that that issue be placed on the agenda for the next DAB meeting after those minutes have been compiled and distributed.

Technical Subcommittee:
Mr. Mike Colletto advised that the subcommittee has not met. Their agenda is clear and they are ready to resume on any issue the Board would like them to pursue.

Zoning and Planning Subcommittee/Hillside Subcommittee:
Ms. Stiak advised that the subcommittee met May 15, 2001 to finalize proposed text amendment revisions and have forwarded on for review by the Village Planning Committees and subsequently to Planning Commission by June or July. Ms. Stiak gave kudos to City staff for their work on the text amendments.

Black Canyon Corridor Design Guidelines Ad Hoc Subcommittee:
Mr. Wilson advised that the ad hoc subcommittee has attempted to meet three times since the last DAB meeting and has been unsuccessful in meeting a quorum, so there is no action to report. Mr. Wilson will defer any comments to the listed agenda item.

Ad Hoc Planned Community District Subcommittee: No Report.

DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON INCREASE IN MINIMUM WATER/SEWER EASEMENT WIDTHS:
Mr. Carnell Thurman advised that on February 22, 2001 Development Services received a memo from the Water Services Department giving them a directive to ensure new easement requirements from private development. Upon receipt of that memo the staff immediately began stipulating those requirements on private development projects. There is a great deal of concern from the development community about the impact with these new easement requirements.

On March 15, 2001, Water Services staff provided the DAB with a presentation discussing the rationale for the new easement requirement widths. Mr. Keith Larson, Water Services, had stated that with the current conditions, urban redevelopment, and the aging of our water systems, it was appropriate to re-evaluate our current easement policies. Since that time all projects are being evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Initially, the stake holders views were not taken into consideration and DSD is striving to address that by evaluating each project on an individual basis, especially in new development areas.

In new developments where there are new mains, DSD is trying to adhere to the concerns of the Water Services Department. In redevelopment and urban development areas with existing mains and easements, more individual evaluations of each project are being done.

Mr. Thurman stated that since there was no representation present from the Water Services Department, he would like to see this particular agenda item placed on a future agenda to give DSD an opportunity to discuss these issues further with Water Services and the stakeholders to see if they can come up with compromises on existing conditions and to return to the Board with feedback on the results of those discussions.

Mr. Wilson asked what Mr. Thurman meant when he stated that DSD is trying to adhere to the requested parameters established by Water Services? When one comes in for a Preapp are these new requirements presented as rules that they have to conform with? Mr. Thurman advised that the big issue is that even though they have the easement width requirements, the problem is with the setbacks to those easements. There are projects that are right on the very edge of easements and it makes it every difficult for the maintenance and repair of the water/sewer lines. Water Services is trying to ensuring that there are proper setbacks in relationship to the water/sewer system.

Mr. Wilson advised he understands the rationale, but what direction is currently being given to the development community? Is it being treated as a code requirement for enforcement or is it something that is being requested from the developer? Mr. Thurman advised that it was being requested at this time. Mr. Thurman mentioned that as a result DSD is receiving an increase in the amount of appeals and are asking staff to work with Water Services to develop solutions and alternatives to the stipulated requirements.

Mr. Barcon asked if it was true that it was simply a request or is it confusing enough that they might think they were requirements? Mr. Barcon advised he was thinking particularly of the 50-foot requirement for sewer that was part of that package. Mr. Thurman responded that when the proposal was presented to the DAB, it was for information only with the intent that it would be made policy in the future. But at this time DSD has been given a directive to ensure that we meet these minimums and try in every way possible to get these requirements met and if not, to coordinate alternatives with Water Services.

Ms. Judy Pavsek questioned Mr. Thurman's mention of appeals? Mr. Thurman advised that DSD has received quite a number of appeals. Because of the memo from Water Services, plan review staff have begun stipulating requests for the increased easement widths and developers are appealing those increased easement widths and are seeking to have them reduced. Mr. Thurman advised that the requirements are not included under the current design guidelines of the Water Service Department.

Mr. Barcon stated that in essence DSD is enforcing the procedure, but are saying that DSD will work with anybody that has a problem complying. However, the Development Advisory Board has not necessarily accepted this policy? Does the DAB have to accept it?

Mr. Hemingway advised that DAB has asked Water Services to come back to the Board to refine the recommendation and Water Services has not come back to the Board for a recommendation. When Water Services made their initial presentation, the Board expressed some concerns with regard to the easements and the increases in some cases of up to 80 feet. In some projects the impact would be substantial depending on the length of the pipe.

Mr. Barcon asked if DSD wasn't premature in enforcing or recommending this policy? Mr. Thurman agreed that he felt it was premature and that we need to give Water Services time to reevaluate their request along with communicating their proposed policy to the stakeholders to see if they are in agreement and then come back to the Board for their recommendation.

Ms. Judy Pavsek questioned Mr. Thurman's mention of appeals? Mr. Thurman advised that DSD has received quite a number of appeals. Because of the memo from Water Services, plan review staff have begun stipulating requests for the increased easement widths and developers are appealing those increased easement widths and are seeking to have them reduced. Mr. Thurman advised that the requirements are not included under the current design guidelines of the Water Service Department.

Mr. Barcon stated that in essence DSD is enforcing the procedure, but are saying that DSD will work with anybody that has a problem complying. However, the Development Advisory Board has not necessarily accepted this policy? Does the DAB have to accept it?

Mr. Hemingway advised that DAB has asked Water Services to come back to the Board to refine the recommendation and Water Services has not come back to the Board for a recommendation. When Water Services made their initial presentation, the Board expressed some concerns with regard to the easements and the increases in some cases of up to 80 feet. In some projects the impact would be substantial depending on the length of the pipe.

Mr. Barcon asked if DSD wasn't premature in enforcing or recommending this policy? Mr. Thurman agreed that he felt it was premature and that we need to give Water Services time to reevaluate their request along with communicating their proposed policy to the stakeholders to see if they are in agreement and then come back to the Board for their recommendation.

Lionel Lyons, Director of Development Services, stated that he agrees and that DSD will follow-up on the issue. He stated that he hears from the Board that part of the issue is that at some point in time whether we are requiring or requesting it, the Water Department needs to do something to change the Ordinance to address that fact. Mr. Lyons stated that DSD has begun preliminary discussions with the Water Department and the Home Builders. Meetings are being scheduled to begin to address this issue. Hopefully, those meetings can happen in a timeframe to facilitate reporting at the next DAB meeting. Mr. Lyons advised that he also had concerns. Since this is not a requirement and we are "requesting", should DSD even be addressing those appeals at this time. Mr. Lyons reiterated that DSD would do whatever they need to do to follow-up with the Board.

Mr. Wilson stated that he would like to clarify a point that was made by Water Services when they made their presentation in February. They had some very dramatic photographs illustrating the issue, but upon scrutiny the line was a very large line (48-inch main). When asked how frequently that occurred, the response was that it occurred approximately four times annually. Mr. Wilson stated that he feels DSD has unfortunately been placed in the middle in a very precarious position as to enforcement. He also wished to add that was at least one person in the audience with an interest in this issue as it relates to redevelopment projects. He asked if the person wished to address the Board at this time.

Mr. John Kuhn, a civil engineer with Evans, Kuhn and Associates, that much of his practice involves redevelopment type work. He informed the Board that there were two aspects of this that he wished to bring forward for discussion, one is the easement width issue, but the second aspect is the general requirement that we have exclusive easements or a water and sewer easement. In a redevelopment situation generally you have existing public utility easements that run through the site. He stated that there need for some clarification as to whether that public utility easement, which by nature would allow telephone, electric, natural gas, etc. would be in addition to the new requirements. Another issue is the applicability or grandfathering of easements. On redevelopment projects, it is not uncommon to have existing easements on the site. Is it necessary to increase the size of those easements, say you have a 16-foot wide sewer easement, is it necessary to have a sewer easement that is 40-feet wide or 25-feet wide in the course of developing the project? Mr. Kuhn added that he hoped those issues would be addressed as well as the width issue.

Mr. Coley advised that action on this item will be deferred until the next DAB agenda.

DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION OF NORTH BLACK CANYON CORRIDOR GUIDELINES:
Mr. John Parks updated the Board on the status of the North Black Canyon overlays. The Design Review Standards will be addressing this item next Tuesday, May 22. The Planning Commission hearing was initially scheduled to be held on May 23, but will probably be continued to June 13 and probably on to City Council by June 27. The Planning Department has indicated that they may have the latest revision by this weekend in time for the Design Review Standards Committee to review at their Tuesday meeting.

Mr. Wilson stated that he is extremely optimistic about the potential resolution of the issues between the concerned parties, but is not confident that the resolution will be accomplished before the City Council meeting on June 27. Mr. Wilson feels very strongly that if additional time is necessary to see that all issues are resolved. He expressed his thanks to the Design Review Standards Committee, normally scheduled to meet once a month, has had countless special meetings on this issue with the goal of completing review prior to it being forwarded to City Council. Staff has also become extremely proactive with the development industry, Home Builders of Central Arizona, Valley Partnership, stakeholders and landholders in the area, to the point of having meetings every two and three days to cover this document.

Mr. Mardian advised that his fear is that if the questions aren't resolved prior to City Council action, that DSD will suffer in subsequent appeals and meetings over issues that wouldn't have arisen had more time been spent on the document. He feels it could be a nightmare for Development Services if not resolved.

Mr. Coley asked if there was any possibility of this item being pushed back on the Council agenda. Mr. John Kuhn advised that he is the chair of the Design Review Standards Committee. He stated they are attempting to make a good faith effort to move this document forward before the break as the Council has requested, but are probably not willing to move it forward without resolving the issues. If the Design Review Standards Committee does not adopt a recommendation next week and are not satisfied that questions have not been sufficiently covered, then he felt that without a recommendation from the Design Review Standards Committee, it would probably be continued by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Coley asked for the Board's input as to what action they should take at this time. Mr. Wilson advised that he is confident that Mr. Kuhn's committee will be responding as he stated and is willing to let the schedule proceed along its present course of action. If by the middle of next month DAB is still of the opinion that issues are still too large and outstanding, this Board could forward an opinion or recommendation to City Council at that time. Mr. Mardian agreed with that course of action. Mr. Coley stated that the Board will then defer action on this item and table it for further discussion at the June DAB meeting.

DISCUSSION/INFORMATION ON FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED PHOENIX FIRE CODE CHANGES:
Mr. Gary Morris advised that the Fire Department has attempted over the past several years to revise the Fire Code and fee structure in regard to hazardous materials and have only recently been successful in doing so. Last November, the City Council provided funding for fourteen hazardous material inspector positions for the Fire Department with a directive to cost recover those position through the permit process. The goals of the Fire Code change is to achieve cost recovery, revise the permit process, establish a fee structure based on the risk factor of the facility, require annual reporting, attain a database of facilities that require inspections and inspect on a regular basis. A public hearing on the proposed changes will be held on May 22, 2001.

Mr. Barcon asked if this was just for new permits or does it address those that have already been issued as well? Mr. Morris advised that every existing facility that might qualify under hazardous materials criteria will require a permit and group structure will determine what that fees will be.

Mr. Orcutt asked for a brief outline of what the range of hazardous materials would be. Mr. Orcutt also mentioned that Circle K was listed in the materials, would all Circle Ks that carries any type of hazardous materials be a part of this requirement? Mr. Morris responded that they would, but that in the Group 1 listing a permit is good for five years, with a $25 renewal each year to update their inventory. Mr. Morris stated that the Group 2 would be the Home Depots or the Walmarts that have larger quantities of hazardous materials in the building. Group 3 is the major production facilities and major warehouse facility types.

Mr. Colletto asked if Mr. Morris could educate the Board as to the hazards of some of these materials, such as a business shut down because of ammonium nitrate and cyanide. Mr. Morris advised this was a very serious situation, the facility was discovered in the inspection process and is one of several that could be called "time bombs." This business had a very sloppy operation, did not meet the Fire Code or other regulations with cyanides on site and was not aware of the proper storage or the risks. There were also ammonium nitrates on the site that were also improperly stored. This is the same material that blew up the building in Oklahoma City. The cyanide, depending on how diluted it is and this was a heavy concentration used for a plating operation, a very fine mist drop on the skin is enough to kill you. Mr. Morris stated that the long term goal of these code changes is to make the City safer. From a fire protection standpoint, the greatest risk for the largest life loss is not from fire, but from a hazardous materials event.

Mr. Ortega asked if when the $25 annual fee for the hazardous material storage is paid, does Fire follow-up with an inspection. Mr. Morris advised that the $25 fee is for a low risk operations such as the Circle Ks where there are small amounts of product with the biggest risk being the LP gas cylinders on site.

An electronic reporting process is in development for tracking hazardous materials inventories and collecting information for the Group 2 and 3 classifications. This process would enable rapid electronic reporting from those groups to the Fire Department master file, which in the case of a fire at one of those locations could be easily accessed to determine the amount of materials and risks involved. A public hearing on the proposed code changes is being held by the Fire Safety Advisory Board. The changes will be forwarded to the Public Safety Subcommittee for approval and then on to City Council.

Mr. Elssmann asked if the Federal requirement to report these materials is enforced or monitored? Mr. Morris advised that to some degree they were and that there are both Federal and State reporting requirements as well as City and State Fire Code requirements. The more professional outfits report no question, but when you get down to the smaller shops they typically do not. The electronic reporting will simplify that process.

CALL TO PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION):
Mr. Litchfield advised that per the Development Advisory Board by-laws, the terms of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman will expire as of June 30. Nominations and election of those positions will be on the June 21 agenda with the new officers assuming their duties at the July meeting.

Mr. Litchfield advised that this would be his last Board meeting as a City staff member. He is leaving the City of Phoenix and joining the private sector. He expressed his appreciation to the Board and stated that he has enjoyed working with them.

Mr. Mardian wished to acknowledge Mike Colleto's efforts and involvement in the successful completion of the residential no-step issue. Mr. Coley agreed and stated that it was also an example of bringing issues to light and getting the public involved and come out with a win-win scenario. Anytime that you can come away with both sides feeling they moved things forward is good for the community at large, which hopefully is what the DAB is all about.

Ms. Patricia Childs referred back to the item regarding the increase in minimum water/sewer easement widths and asked if this was just going to the Executive Committee? Mr. Coley clarified that the Executive Committee will interface with DSD and Water and will come back to the full Board in June.

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Peter Hemingway, to adjourn the May 17, 2001 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

Session adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

 
John Parks for Larry Litchfield, PE
Deputy Director, Building Official

Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Fitz, Administrative Assistant I

c:

Board Member Mayor Skip Rimsza City Council Members Mr. Fairbanks Mr. Washington City Clerk Mr. Lyons Mr. Olson Mr. Wendt Mr. Goodhue

Mr. Dolasinski Mr. Davila Ms. McKinley Ms. Beckley Mr. Bunyard Mr. Doell Mr. Fleming Mr. Horn Mr. Mundy

Mr. Mushtaq Mr. Parks Ms. Reed Mr. Singbush Mr. Thurman Mr. Kienow Mr. Taschner Mr. Adams Ms. Fitz